How Safe It Your Car? It Depends

Special Advertising Feature

September 05, 2012|Jim MacPherson, On The Road

Last week, I examined the new offset barrier crash test that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) introduced to automakers and the car-buying public. In this test, only 25 percent of the car's frontal structure on the driver's side has to absorb all of the energy generated in a 40 mile per hour collision with a rigid barrier.

This test is meant to simulate a driver going off the road and almost missing a non-breakaway pole or tree. It's an extremely difficult test, a fact confirmed by the number of cars previously rated as a "Top Safety Pick" by the IIHS that didn't do well in this new test.

This new "small" offset barrier crash test now joins the "moderate" offset barrier crash test. This test, which has been used by the IIHS for years, involves just 40 percent of the frontal structure of the vehicle. It must absorb all of the energy of a 40 mile per hour crash test that simulates striking an oncoming vehicle of equal weight after straying over the double yellow line at 40 miles per hour.

When the "moderate" offset barrier crash test was first introduced, most cars did poorly, a fact that the IIHS publicized. Now, following several design cycles, most cars do well.

The IIHS expects the same evolution here. Manufacturers will start to upgrade designs to handle this difficult small offset test, which simulates a rare, but not unheard of, collision. Several automakers noted that upgrading cars to handle this small offset barrier crash test could detract from handling and fuel economy due to the added weight of the required frontal structure.

For buyers who equate safety with crash test results, a senior engineer from one automaker has some sobering thoughts. While cars that do well in crash tests often have better loss-due-to-injury records, the results are valid only for the exact circumstances replicated in the test. Vary anything, be it speed, crash angle or the size and seating position of passenger, and all bets are off.

Consider what happened when the federal government changed the crash test dummy in the front passenger seat for its frontal 35 mile per hour barrier crash test. In 2010, the National Highway Traffic Administration used a crash test dummy that represented the average male. In 2011, it substituted a crash test dummy representing a small female. The ratings for many cars plummeted. Just modifying the size of passenger changes results, something to think about if you are taller, shorter, heavier or lighter than average.

The engineer adds that one of the automated welding machines used in the assembly of the frontal structures of one of his company's models had recently failed. The problem was quickly detected and fixed, but not before eight cars were produced.

These cars were pulled from distribution and not sold, but the safety engineers were curious to determine what this failure during assembly meant in a crash test. The answer: These cars, with the missed welds and less rigid frontal structure, did much better in the federal crash test, but were poorer performers in the IIHS offset barrier crash test.

This brought him to the next point: Structural designs are, by necessity, a compromise. "If people had only one kind of crash, we could design cars that would handle that one crash very well. But, there are so many possibilities. A car that is designed to do best in a full barrier crash test (the type used by the federal government) will suffer in the offset test," he says.

His final point: All this crash testing ignores the issue of active safety, the ability of the car to avoid crashing in the first place. A vehicle does this by handling well and responding accurately to a driver's commands. Isn't crash avoidance the best outcome of all?

Jim MacPherson is the host of "The Car Doctor" show airing Sundays at noon on WTIC-AM. Paula MacPherson is his wife and new-car review partner. Send comments, questions, suggestions in care of Special Publications, Hartford Courant, 285 Broad St., Hartford, CT 06115, or email jdee@courant.com.

This content was prepared by the Marketing Department of The Hartford Courant without involvement of the News Department